'Goals 2000' Clears First Hurdle, But Obstacles Remain

WASHINGTON--The Clinton Administration's education-reform package
cleared its first legislative hurdle last week, but it was apparent
that the "goals 2000: educate America act'' faces significant
obstacles.

The House Subcommittee on Elementary, Secondary, and Vocational
Education approved the bill, on a 17-to-9 party-line vote, after a
spirited debate and many amendments. But the Administration and the
National Governors' Association may oppose some of the revisions, and
Republican senators expressed strong reservations at a separate hearing
last week.

Neither the Senate hearing nor the House subcommittee even addressed
concerns of lawmakers and the education and business communities about
provisions calling for the development of occupational-skills
standards. (See story, page 1.)

Other sections would codify the national education goals; formally
authorize the National Education Goals Panel; call for national
standards for curriculum content, student performance, and school
services, and an assessment system; and create a grant program to
support state and local reform plans. It was introduced as HR 1804 in
the House and S 846 in the Senate.

Since the Administration began circulating drafts, the most
controversial issue has been the status and force of
"opportunity-to-learn standards,'' which are designed to measure the
adequacy of school services. Some House Democrats, concerned about the
impact of standards and "high stakes'' testing on disadvantaged
students, have insisted that the bill include strong opportunity
standards as a necessary counterweight.

Before introducing their bill, Administration officials agreed to
put the opportunity standards on an equal footing with the content and
performance standards. The bill calls for a National Education
Standards and Improvement Council to certify voluntary national
standards in each area, and to certify state standards that are "of
equal or higher quality.''

The Administration also agreed that no high-stakes state assessments
would be certified during the five years the bill covers.

But subcommittee Democrats sought to strengthen the provisions even
further. Amendments by Rep. Major R. Owens, D-N.Y., would require
states to develop opportunity standards concurrently with other
standards; require them to implement opportunity standards before
assessments could be certified; specify that national opportunity
standards address the condition of school facilities; and require
states to assess the extent to which school districts meet the
standards.

"We have been willing to compromise and bring these amendments down
to a minimal package,'' Mr. Owens said, "but this is the minimum.''

The amendments were approved on a voice vote, but several
Republicans expressed reservations.

The bill "may be opening the door to a national standard for what a
school building should be,'' Rep. Steve Gunderson, R-Wis., said.

Rep. Bill Goodling, R-Pa., the committee's ranking Republican,
warned that strong opportunity standards could dissuade states and
schools from participating in the reform program, and that it could
lead to a wave of finance-equity lawsuits.

"I agree with the concept that you need to have equal opportunity,''
he said, "but all I can see is the trips to court.''

The two Republicans' complaints grew stronger when Rep. John F.
Reed, D-R.I., offered an amendment requiring states to establish a
policy for "corrective action'' when schools fail to meet opportunity
standards as a prerequisite for approval of their state plans by the
U.S. Secretary of Education.

Without such a mandate, he said, "states could just take the money
and do elaborate planning; then when schools don't meet the standards,
just shrug their shoulders.''

The amendment passed on a 18-to-7 party-line vote.

Michael Cohen, a consultant to Secretary of Education Richard W.
Riley, said the Administration could accept the amendment if the
mandate for corrective action also applied to schools.

"The basic idea of having a strategy for dealing with schools that
are failing is not a problem,'' he said.

But Republicans predicted governors would echo their opposition.

Senatorial Objections

At last week's hearing of the Senate Committee on Labor and Human
Resources, Republicans told Mr. Riley that they strongly oppose even
the Administration's original bill, protesting what Sen. Nancy L.
Kassebaum, R-Kan., called its "overly prescriptive nature.''

"We're saying that [states] must deal with each of these
components,'' Mr. Riley said in defending the bill. "How they do it is
up to them.''

Some senators also complained that the bill would give states too
much authority over districts, and the federal government too much
authority to direct state reform efforts.

Concerns also arose last week about the composition and powers of
the goals panel. Most observers thought the issue had been put to rest
when lawmakers negotiated a compromise with the Bush Administration
that balanced the panel politically, gave Congressional representatives
voting membership, and added four state legislators.

Several Democrats last week proposed amendments that would strip the
panel of some of its authority and indicated that they would propose
expanding the panel to include educators, parents, or educational
experts.

The subcommittee chairman, Rep. Dale E. Kildee, D-Mich., persuaded
them to wait, and pledged to try to broker an agreement.

But the subcommittee adopted by voice vote an amendment requiring
that, "to the extent feasible,'' the goals panel be "geographically
representative'' and reflect "racial, ethnic, and gender
diversity.''

The panel also adopted an amendment increasing the amount of reform
funds states would have to pass on to school districts.

Web Only

Notice: We recently upgraded our comments. (Learn more here.) If you are logged in as a subscriber or registered user and already have a Display Name on edweek.org, you can post comments. If you do not already have a Display Name, please create one here.

Ground Rules for Posting
We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
All comments are public.